Silver1SWA From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 4655 posts, RR: 27 Posted (8 years 2 months 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 2369 times:
This photo was just rejected because the quality does not meet Airliners.net standards. My guess is because it is a little grainy. I can fix this and have fixed it so that I can re-upload it. Is there anything else you guys can find wrong with it that I can fix as well so I don't waste another week before having to fix another problem with it? As always, the reasons are vague and list numerous possible problems with the quality. It's a guessing game trying to figure out which reason is the reason. So I'll leave it up to you. What needs to be fixed? Thanks.
ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
WakeTurbulence From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 1291 posts, RR: 18 Reply 1, posted (8 years 2 months 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 2364 times:
I really like the motive of this photo. If it were mine, I would have cropped it closer like this. Hope you don't mind, I just wanted to show you an example. http://img156.imageshack.us/my.php?image=ua757san28ns.jpg
It also takes out the ramp traffic which can lead to rejection. I used a 3X2 crop vs. 4X3. For quality it would be nice to see the original. Good luck though, I like the shot.
Psych From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 3010 posts, RR: 59 Reply 2, posted (8 years 2 months 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 2352 times:
I would agree with Matt on this one.
Generally my preference is for the more traditional 3:2 aspect ratio, so I would go for this here. Part of the reason for me would be that I think it more suits the shape of the aircraft, but also would allow you to crop rather closer in to the ends of the wings - you don't want the screener considering a rejection due to distance, or anything like that.
Obviously such a crop would alter the motive somewhat, as you lose the ground vehicle and the runway surface, but if you can live with that, and maintain a decent quality to the image of the aircraft itself, then I think there would be a higher chance of acceptance. I think the presence of the interesting trees in the background is context enough for the motive to remain clear.
If you need any further comments/help on the overall quality issue do feel free to get in touch.
Silver1SWA From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 4655 posts, RR: 27 Reply 4, posted (8 years 2 months 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 2317 times:
Quoting WakeTurbulence (Reply 1): It also takes out the ramp traffic which can lead to rejection. I used a 3X2 crop vs. 4X3. For quality it would be nice to see the original. Good luck though, I like the shot.
Quoting Psych (Reply 2): Obviously such a crop would alter the motive somewhat, as you lose the ground vehicle and the runway surface, but if you can live with that, and maintain a decent quality to the image of the aircraft itself, then I think there would be a higher chance of acceptance. I think the presence of the interesting trees in the background is context enough for the motive to remain clear.
Thanks guys. See this is where my frustration with this site comes in. I purposely left the ground in the shot to give a reference of how close, and how low this aircraft is in the shot. I suppose I should crop it a bit though...thanks. Is there anything else quality-wise?
Scooter From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 848 posts, RR: 2 Reply 6, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 2266 times:
You want real advice? Well, I think you need to get me out on the ramp at SAN for an afternoon of photography, and I'll tell you all you need to know!! Lucky bastard. Haha...whenever I'm out shooting at SAN, I envy all you guys driving around inside the perimeter.
Seriously though, the image appears slightly over-sharpened, and you probably could have cropped it just a little tighter (there really isn't anything to see in the background). Plus, you are fighting a very tough lighting condition on a dark/dull aircraft, so that doesn't help.
SAN is tough in the mornings with the light centerline on the runway. If you would have shot that in the afternoon with the side of the aircraft lit, some of the details would have really popped.
Nice shot though...there aren't many runway 9 arrivals in the database.
Want more ass kissing and advice? I'd looooove inside access...
NIKV69 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 7, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 2238 times:
Quoting Silver1SWA (Reply 4): Thanks man! When you coming out to the West Coast again??
I pull into Laughlin Dec 30th! Will make my first drive up to LAS couple of weeks after that. Also I am coordinating with my friends from here to meet for the LA show and have a spotting trip to LAX, LAS and IGM. We have to meet for a full day of shooting at LAS at some point of the winter Ryan!
Quoting Silver1SWA (Reply 5): Ok now wait a minute. I just found this in another thread. How does this pass and not mine??
IMO the shot in the DB is a bit more clean. No vehicle or person in it.